LINK Financial? Check this out...

[angry cat]

I wonder what 'Santander' think about Link Financial?

Do they (Santander) condone the misleading, covert and unfair business practices employed by Link?

 

Strikes me that, if Santander are not somewhat RED Faced, then they should be!

 

"CCA Search :: CCA Search Results :: Licence Details

 

 

Application / Licence Details

Licence Number:0498087Licence Status:Current

Current Applicant / Licensee:

Business Name Company Registration Number

Santander Consumer Credit Services Limited 3927500

 

Categories:

Consumer credit

Consumer hire

Credit brokerage

Credit reference agency

Debt adjusting/counselling

Debt collecting

 

Right To Canvass Off Trade Premises:Yes

Trading Name(s) (Current):

Asda Card

Asda Card Account

Asda Card Services

Asda Crdit Card

Asda Everyday Credit Card

Asda Financial Services

Asda Loans

Asda Master Card

Asda Personal Loans

Asda Reward Credit Card

Asda Store Card

Asda Storecard & Credit Card

Asda.com

GE Consumer Credit Services

GE Money

GECCSL

Santander Cards

 

Trading Name(s) (Historic):

igroup

igroup direct

igroup loans

igroup mortgages

igcl

igroup commercial

 

Issued Date: 17-Jan-2001 Expiry Date: 24-Jan-2011

Legal Formation:

Body Corporate (incorporated inside UK)

 

Current Individuals that run the organisation:

Name Position

Adam Nicholas Mussert Director

Roger Vincent Lovering Director

 

Historic Individuals that run the organisation:

Name Position

Brad John Cooper OFFICER

Daniel Edward Laurence Hayes OFFICER

Daniel Marsh Levine

Ewan Douglas Cameron

Ian Graham Story Director

Ian Graham Story OFFICER

Jeffrey Allan Kagan OFFICER

Jennifer Anne Owens OFFICER

John Michiel Deboer

John Stewart Macphail OFFICER

Joseph Arthur Dlutowski OFFICER

Kalpna Shah OFFICER

Keith Ainsworth OFFICER

Laurence Perry OFFICER

Mr Colin George Sanders OFFICER

Nigel Kenneth Sparrow Director

Peter Brennan OFFICER

Peter Harvey Green Director

Richard John Harvey Director

Robin Ashley Prupp Director

Simon Josuah Deane-Johns OFFICER

Stuart William Sinclair OFFICER

Susan Elizabeth Critchon OFFICER

 

Current Organisations that run the organisation:

Name Company Registration Number Position

Abbey National Nominees Limited 02516674

Wightman Sally Marion

 

Historic Organisations that run the organisation:

Name Company Registration Number Position

Rutland Nominees (No 2) Limited OFFICER

 

Nature of Business:

Investment/Financial Advisers

 

Current Address(es):

Address Type Address

Registered Office 2, Triton Square, Regents Place, LONDON, NW1 3AN, United Kingdom

 

Historic Address(es):

Address Type Address

Correspondence 6, Agar Street, London, WC2N 4HR

Correspondence c/o Kalpna Shah, Malvern House, Croxley Business Park, Watford, Hertfordshire, WD18 8YF

Correspondence c/o Legal Department 6, Agar Street, London, WC2N 4HR

Principal Place Of Business 6, Agar Street, London, WC2N 4HR

Principal Place Of Business Malvern House, Croxley Business Park, Watford, Hertfordshire, WD18 8YF

Principal Place Of Business Santander House, 100, Ludgate Hill, London, EC4 7RE

Registered Office 2, Triton Square, Regents Place, London, NW1 3AN, UK

Registered Office 6, Agar Street, London, WC2N 4HR

Registered Office Malvern House, Croxley Business Park, Watford, Hertfordshire, WD18 8YF

[DoubleU]

You could always ask?? with many corporations the e-mail addresses are very simple to discover. A good bet would be either: [email protected] or [email protected]

DoubleU

[angry cat]

Doesn't look like Santander are treating customers fairly, does it.

 

Santander and their cosy relationship with Link Financial;

Looks like the Santander dirty pants will get washed in public after all...

 

GEMoney;

GECapital;

Alliance & Leicester;

Abbey;

Bradford & Bingley

etc...

[emandcole]

Update. Link Financial have failed to meet the order of the judge and as of this week I had to file and serve my amended defence. Did this and have also submitted my counter claim and paid the court the fee (daylight robbery).

 

The court have confirmed they've had nothing from the claimant at all, which is no surprise to me at all given the nature and history of the account.

 

Sure, I could have made an application for strike out but given the fact that Link really don't have a leg to stand on on so many levels I've gone on the attack. Have claimed for refund of all charges, section 85 default with return of all interest charged since the credit token was replaced etc...well why not? and have submitted unlawful rescission of contract (there's a bit more to this than I've revealed to date but trust me when I say it's good and beyond 'normal') leading to injury to credit.

 

Have relied on a case where the judge ruled that no injury to credit needs to be shown along with some other useful stuff and the figures allowed make pretty scary reading for a DCA who has, as anyone who's followed this thread from the start will realise, made a complete horlicks of it all.

 

Added to this is the fact that the court has been made aware of Trading Standards' involvement and the referral to the OFT Licensing Dept. detailed in all its glory. Gonna love watching them explain themselves on that, the judge when he caught a quick glimpse of the letter before gave me no doubt that he was far from impressed with Link so the actual hearing when he actually learns the whole story won't be a lot of fun for whoever Link send.

 

Once my costs have been added along with all the extras if they have any sense they'll freak and try to stop the case...which I'm likely to refuse as frankly I want my day in court now. I've read enough stuff on my case, know it inside out, have exposed the belly of the claimant (and it's a very portly belly at that) and am now looking forward to the next stages. AQ's should be next but given the fact that I've still had to state I'm embarrassed when it comes to working out certain things I'll have to wait and see what the judge makes of it.

 

I have at least 4 seperate issues that by themselves support the dismissal of the claimants case and as Link have done themselves no favours at all is there a chance the judge looks at it, says enough's enough, and just awards the counter claim in my favour? If I get the same judge as last time I know he was already sick of Link and all of their games, just maybe he decides my case is a good opportunity to sting Link where it hurts? We'll wait and see.

[angry cat]

:

...section 85 default with return of all interest charged since the credit token was replaced etc...well why not?"

 

Agree, Excellent:)

 

"submitted unlawful rescission of contract (there's a bit more to this than I've revealed to date but trust me when I say it's good and beyond 'normal') leading to injury to credit."

 

Have you borrowed my cauldren?

 

AC

[livelifeloveit]

Update. Link Financial have failed to meet the order of the judge and as of this week I had to file and serve my amended defence. Did this and have also submitted my counter claim and paid the court the fee (daylight robbery).

 

The court have confirmed they've had nothing from the claimant at all, which is no surprise to me at all given the nature and history of the account.

 

Sure, I could have made an application for strike out but given the fact that Link really don't have a leg to stand on on so many levels I've gone on the attack. Have claimed for refund of all charges, section 85 default with return of all interest charged since the credit token was replaced etc...well why not? and have submitted unlawful rescission of contract (there's a bit more to this than I've revealed to date but trust me when I say it's good and beyond 'normal') leading to injury to credit.

 

Have relied on a case where the judge ruled that no injury to credit needs to be shown along with some other useful stuff and the figures allowed make pretty scary reading for a DCA who has, as anyone who's followed this thread from the start will realise, made a complete horlicks of it all.

 

Added to this is the fact that the court has been made aware of Trading Standards' involvement and the referral to the OFT Licensing Dept. detailed in all its glory. Gonna love watching them explain themselves on that, the judge when he caught a quick glimpse of the letter before gave me no doubt that he was far from impressed with Link so the actual hearing when he actually learns the whole story won't be a lot of fun for whoever Link send.

 

Once my costs have been added along with all the extras if they have any sense they'll freak and try to stop the case...which I'm likely to refuse as frankly I want my day in court now. I've read enough stuff on my case, know it inside out, have exposed the belly of the claimant (and it's a very portly belly at that) and am now looking forward to the next stages. AQ's should be next but given the fact that I've still had to state I'm embarrassed when it comes to working out certain things I'll have to wait and see what the judge makes of it.

 

I have at least 4 seperate issues that by themselves support the dismissal of the claimants case and as Link have done themselves no favours at all is there a chance the judge looks at it, says enough's enough, and just awards the counter claim in my favour? If I get the same judge as last time I know he was already sick of Link and all of their games, just maybe he decides my case is a good opportunity to sting Link where it hurts? We'll wait and see.

 

well done and good luck

[matsinlondon]

Very nice, but as you say it depends upon getting a judge who gives a damn about justice and the facts put in front of him. Good luck! Will watch with interest.

[haggis1984]

Good work emandcole!

[emandcole]

Thanks for the support. Had a chunky brown envelope turn up today and inside was a copy of my defence and counterclaim along with an AQ and a notice on the front entitled 'Notice that a Defence and Counterclaim Has Been Filed'.

 

Looks as if I've been sent a copy of the documents sent to the claimant and best of all they only have until the 15th March to complete and return the AQ along with a fully compiled defence to the counterclaim. Assuming they got their pack today as well, which I doubt as they're further away, they only have 7 working days to complete this, 8 if they finish it on the Monday and fax it all over.

 

Given the fact that they still haven't produced any of the paperwork the court ordered them to provide I guess they're really up against it now. Even if they do I'd then have to assess it and re-amend my defence and counterclaim so unless they have the wisdom to pull out now and cut their losses it might get even more messy.

 

Additionally, the vast number of failures they've adopted and added to as the claimant are likely to cause them a huge headache. Can't wait to produce certain bits of paper they haven't yet had sight of if it goes to trial ;-).

[DonkeyB]

Can't wait to produce certain bits of paper they haven't yet had sight of if it goes to trial ;-).

 

Bear in mind you can't just pop these out in the court room! Sounds good though. Well done.

[emandcole]

Yeah, don't worry about that, I'll disclose as and when ordered to do so but I've referred to this particular piece of evidence in my defence already, just they haven't seen it yet. Had they delivered a fully detailed SAR months ago they might have stumbled across it themselves but they didn't so hey ho. Be a nice little surprise for them either way .

[emandcole]

AQ's were due in yesterday and I got mine in along with a directions order asking the court to throw their claim out as it has no reasonable prospect of success. Asked the court to consider awarding the counterclaim as detailed in the defence.

 

The claimant was also supposed to have delivered a full defence to my counterclaim and I believe none has been submitted...no real surprise there I guess.

 

Got a letter this morning from Link however and it seems they don't want to play any more .

 

'Without Prejudice

 

We write further to the above.

 

In view of the balance outstanding and the delay in receiving documents from the original creditor, we propose the attached Consent Order to discontinue both the claim and the counterclaim, each party to bear their own costs. Should this be agreeable, we would ask that you sign and return the Order to us as soon as possible. A copy will then be lodged with the County Court and no further action will be taken against you'.

 

I read the above as follows:

 

In view of the balance outstanding and the delay in receiving documents from the original creditor because we either never had them, or they are completely invalid, we propose the attached Consent Order to discontinue both the claim and the counterclaim as we recognise the fact that if this gets to court we'll get roasted, each party to bear their own costs as we're tools and don't really want to pay all of the expenses our fruitless action has likely cost you to date as well as our own.

 

Should this be agreeable if you're clueless and don't recognise the fact we're against the wall now, we would ask that you sign and return the Order to us as soon as possible as the sooner you accept our offer the less chance we have of getting our claim thrown out beforehand and you getting your counterclaim awarded as we can't defend it. A copy will then be lodged with the County Court and no further action will be taken against you.

 

Yours Faithfully.'

 

So, it appears a victory is indeed imminent and Link are now on a damage limitation exercise as they don't want to have to pay me a counterclaim sum for the unlawful rescission and subsequent injury to credit I've claimed for, alng with all of the other extras in there.

 

I'll write and respond as it is a formal request reminding them I have no reason to discontinue and informing them that I'm particulary interested to hear their reasoning in the court as to their attempts to perverse the course of justice (as detailed earlier in this thread for any new readers).

 

I can of course offer them an opportunity to make an out of court offer of settlement for the counterclaim so think I'll do that and see what they want to do. To be honest I'd happily lose some of the money just to see their representative squirm before a judge as they try to explain their actions. I'm guessing that irrespective of the other issues they never had a hope of defending they recognise the severity of their attempts to mislead a defendant and the last place they want to be to explain this is in a court.

 

I'll keep you all up to speed but safe to say another victory for cag and and as soon as I get hold of any counterclaim fee I'll be making a donation to the site. We'll see how much Link don't want to be in the court on this in the coming weeks I imagine, either way it's time for a little fun I think. Naughty. Moi?

[DonkeyB]

They are shot. What does the consent order say? Sounds like they know they are fecked and are trying to wriggle out.

 

Now, if you proposed your own consent order which included payment of your costs, the removal of any data on CRAs and a promise that the alleged debt will not be sold on nor a further claim raised, then all well and good....

 

but then you can shoot bacon out of the sky, I hear.

[SkemDosser]

Emandcole: I'll keep you all up to speed but safe to say another victory for cag and and as soon as I get hold of any counterclaim fee I'll be making a donation to the site. We'll see how much Link don't want to be in the court on this in the coming weeks I imagine, either way it's time for a little fun I think. Naughty. Moi?

 

Got to be a high five there, well done!. Nice to read some good news and goes to show with a bit of tenacity these arrogant fools can be brought to task

[emandcole]

Thanks guys/gals, all good eh. The consent order is a bit of a joke actually and all one sided as you'd expect. It states:

 

BY CONSENT it is ordered that:

 

 

1. The claim be discontinued.
   
2. The counterclaim be discontinued.
   
3. There be no order as to costs.
   

Dated etc, space for both parties to sign.

 

So, they expect me to be grateful for their kind offer it seems? All of this and I get stitched up for my own costs as well? Don't think so but I'd put in for a wasted costs order, seems as if they've attempted to get round that by making me agree beforehand that I can't claim those!

 

Cheeky I reckon. I've just this second finished my thanks but no thanks letter and have reminded them that to date I have no reason to discontinue. My counterclaim is good, my evidence is good, why would I want to discontinue and end up out of pocket as well?

 

I've also reminded them that I want answers about the perversion of course of justice knowing full well they don't want to have to go to court and explain that, it would be a full on massacre and they know it.

 

I've already submitted my AQ yesterday so if the judge gets to it he/she may well grant my counterclaim figure anyway and throw their case out but not sure how that works actually so still learning there. All good experience though which will make it's way back to other caggers as I stick my oar in on other posts .

[WelshMam2009]

Got a letter this morning from Link however and it seems they don't want to play any more .

 

'Without Prejudice

 

We write further to the above.

 

In view of the balance outstanding and the delay in receiving documents from the original creditor, we propose the attached Consent Order to discontinue both the claim and the counterclaim, each party to bear their own costs. Should this be agreeable, we would ask that you sign and return the Order to us as soon as possible. A copy will then be lodged with the County Court and no further action will be taken against you'.

 

Nah...you don't want to be doing that!!

 

As has happened on other threads, I believe they are going to discontinue regardless and this is simply a damage limitation exercise. As you recognise, this is clearly designed to avoid paying you wasted costs.

 

Don't sign would be my advice...but I think you've got their number anyway Emandcole...congratulations!!

[pumpytums]

Nice job Emandcole,

my case is very similar to yours, Stink seem to just go for summary judgments if you defend they seem to roll over and play dead. I'm only at the AQ stage but they are nailed before they even begin.

 

Did you ever get a SAR out of Gemoney? I'm actually going to have to take them to court for failure of my SAR.

 

Pumpytums

[emandcole]

Never got a SAR out of GE Money, Link had a go but what they produced was a mixed bag and missing a lot of very basic info. The moment that happens you know they'll have some difficulty proceeding but Link do walk the talk up to a point. Guess they have to use bravado as often it seems they have little more than that!

[requested]

Thanks for introducing me to cag emandcole and congrats on your win, I know it's not finalised yet but it looks as if they've got nowhere to go on this now?!! Have tipped the scales for you, think i need to have a good read on here as there si so much to take in!

[DonkeyB]

The minute you sign an order like that, they will simply sell the debt on!

 

You should offer them your own order, as I suggested above - I dare you! You are perfectly entitled to do so.

[JonCris]

Yes specify that in recognition of you dropping your counter claim that they agree the debt as being unforceable

[DonkeyB]

The point of winning a counterclaim is that the matter is settled - they will have nothing to sell on.

[AA99]

Nice job Emandcole,

my case is very similar to yours, Stink seem to just go for summary judgments if you defend they seem to roll over and play dead. I'm only at the AQ stage but they are nailed before they even begin.

 

Did you ever get a SAR out of Gemoney? I'm actually going to have to take them to court for failure of my SAR.

 

Pumpytums

The ICO will get you one, or a CPR31.16 (only if you intend taking them to court)

 

Thanks for introducing me to cag emandcole and congrats on your win, I know it's not finalised yet but it looks as if they've got nowhere to go on this now?!! Have tipped the scales for you, think i need to have a good read on here as there si so much to take in!

Read, read, read, absorb, copy and paste, sub (subscribe) to threads, and when you are ready to start your own thread, away you go! You will get all the assistance, support and reassurance you need:cool: ps. Welcome to CAG

 

The point of winning a counterclaim is that the matter is settled - they will have nothing to sell on.

 

Good words DonkeyB, or as my grandad used to say, done & dusted

[WelshMam2009]

Yes specify that in recognition of you dropping your counter claim that they agree the debt as being unforceable

 

That in itself won't necessarily stop them from pursuing the debt though JonCris, albeit not through the courts.

 

I have it in writing from M&S that my agreement is unenforceable and am now onto DCA number 3!!

 

I believe that Link are going to discontinue and I would be stinging them for as much wasted costs as reasonably possible.

[DonkeyB]

I think pushing your counterclaim all the way is important if you are confident of winning. That will be an end to them passing it around.